Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    or...
       
    Reply
    Re: Appeal to forum members to collect data
    From: Alexandre Eremenko
    Date: 2007 Oct 25, 15:59 -0400

    
    Dear Henry,
    
    > the use of Frank's on-line calculator
    > as a standard to determine error.
    
    I use it for several years, compared it with programs
    written by myself and with hand calculation,
    the calculator seems fine, though of course
    I cannot guarantee.
    
    Of course you can use any other method.
    But. To make sure that our results are independent
    of the method used, can you CHECK the result
    with the Frank calculator before sending it to Jim?
    
    This takes just few seconds per sight.
    And has many advantages:
    1. We will be sure that the results are reduced with one
    uniform method.
    2. If you find a disagreement between your calculation
    and Frank's calculator, you will either find a bug
    in Frank's calculator (to the benefit of all us who use it)
    or a bug in your reduction (to your benefit).
    
    So this seems to be a win-win game:-)
    
    > at very least it is rounded off to tenths
    > which in itself leads to possible comparitive errors.
    
    As I understand he keeps one extra digit in the calculation
    and then only rounds the final result.
    How many digits do you propose to keep in the final result?
    
    > In my view, a purpose of the Lunar Observation was to
    > determine Longitude based on time difference.
    
    Not only. Also to control chronometer.
    
    > It appears that a truer
    > gauge of error would rest in a comparison of Lunar
    > determined Longitude with the known position of
    > observation.
    
    With this I disagree. The error in position consists
    of several components. These components have different
    nature and magnitude. It is always easier (and more useful)
    to analyse these components separately.
    In fact the very word "analysis" means something like
    "breaking into components".
    
    > There really should be no problem with
    > the actual distance measurement itself, given a decent
    > instrument and a reasonably competent observer.
    
    Jim and I (if I understand Jim's intention correctly)
    are trying to analyse EXACTLY this: the measurement
    of the distance itself. By a reasonably competent
    observers with decent instruments.
    
    So our points of view differ.
    From my point of view, reduction and finding a position
    is relatively trivial (and less interesting) matter
    than the process of measurement itself.
    
    Alex.
    
    
    --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
    To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
    To unsubscribe, send email to NavList-unsubscribe@fer3.com
    -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
    
    

       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your posting code will be emailed to you immediately.
    Email:

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site